From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerry Van Baren <gvb.uboot@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:17:34 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Non-static global variables cause relocation to
 fail
In-Reply-To: <485BC2E5.8040101@freescale.com>
References: <20080619204505.48ABD248D2@gemini.denx.de>
	<485AC5C5.5080709@freescale.com> <485B250F.6090600@gmail.com>
	<485BC2E5.8040101@freescale.com>
Message-ID: <485E892E.9040803@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Timur Tabi wrote:
> Jerry Van Baren wrote:

[snip]

>> I'm guessing from the name "eeprom" that you have a non-zero initializer 
>> on it???  
> 
> No, no initializer.
> 
>> Does it make a difference if it is uninitialized, initialized 
>> to {0}, or initialized to non-zero values?
> 
> I don't know, I haven't considered it.
> 
> I did notice this code in fsl_i2c.c:
> 
> #ifdef CFG_SPD_BUS_NUM
> static unsigned int i2c_bus_num __attribute__ ((section ("data"))) =
> CFG_SPD_BUS_NUM;
> #else
> static unsigned int i2c_bus_num __attribute__ ((section ("data"))) = 0;
> #endif
> 
> I wrote this code, but I don't remember why I added the "__attribute__ ((section
> ("data")))".  I guess I should have commented it, but I wonder if it applies to
> my current problem.

It doesn't apply in the original complaint and may be flat out wrong, 
but I recall having a problem forcing a zero initializer into the data 
section.  Gcc insisted on putting it in bss and, after playing language 
lawyer with the gcc manual/descriptions/etc, I concluded it was expected 
behavior of gcc.

[snip]

> When I post the full patch, I'll revisit this problem.  Sorry for all the noise.

Interesting quirk.  We may give you a hard time, but that just betrays 
our curiosity.  ;-)

Best regards,
gvb